zlacker

>>revico+(OP)
Someone I know did something similar, was arrested in their college dorm, and at the sentencing hearing in federal court was fined and sentenced to 5 years probation, and now has a criminal record.

This kid is very very lucky. Obviously they violated the CFAA which carries severe criminal penalties. They engaged in actual hacking without any permission or defined scope. And they exploited the system without any responsible disclosure process.

Anyone in the field will tell you that this is an absolute disaster of a post because it sends the signal to other young aspiring cybersecurity professionals that this is OK, and the school will laugh it off, and you'll be seen as an adorable Matthew Broderick type Wargames character. I can't overemphasize how far this is from the truth in 2021.

Absolutely do not access systems you are not allowed to. If you do want to do penetration testing, you need permission from the systems owner and a clearly defined scope. And when you do find issues, you don't exploit them, you responsibly disclose them within a clearly defined framework.

If you want to end up with a criminal record that will profoundly effect the rest of your life, including your career prospects and ability to travel internationally, then by all means, do what this guy did.

I wish it wasn't so. It never used to be. But this is how it is now. Overzealous prosecutors have been given a huge amount of power, and all you need is one embarrassed systems administrator, school board or management team to trigger a disastrous outcome in stories like this.

>>mmaund+0b
Posts like yours validate the insane over criminalization of what essentially amounts to a prank. I had literally the exact same experience in high school. Got expelled and had to get a GED. They could have easily pressed charges.

Part of the issue is people like you who advocate for respecting "the system" and essentially scaring kids into not doing anything. Except that simply re-enforces the draconian laws that are currently in place. If more kids rebelled and this was a regular occurrence it would help to desensitize society to digital pranks instead of always treating these kids like terrorists.

>>hparad+6i
> a prank

Why do we tolerate pranks? You shouldn't be able to interfere with someone else and say 'just a prank bro'. Leave other people's things alone. Don't create work for other people. Don't bother people just trying to do their jobs. Don't impose your sense of humour on others. These all seem like basics to me?

If you think someone's funny? Great. Just don't bother other people with it. Do it with your own stuff, not other people's.

>>chriss+uo
Many criminal cases require establishing intent. Pranks may be harmful as you allude to, but the intent still matters.

>>lr4444+Yq
How does that work? Can you murder someone for a prank and say your intent was just a prank so it was fine?

>>chriss+yr
Intent separates murder from manslaughter in most states in thr USA, so yeah, a death from a prank is tangible different.

>>lr4444+Hy
But they did intend to disrupt the systems in this case. The impact was their exact intent.

>>chriss+Iz
When people say "establishing intent" in terms of criminal cases, this is usually a shorthand for something more specifically defined in the law, like "intent to do harm" or something.

To use the murder example again: many people who commit manslaughter have all kinds of various intentions. The one murder is concerned with is whether or not they specifically had the intent to kill the person. "Establishing intent" in this scenario is specifically regarding that one intent. Not any intent.